Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

ISSN 2079-2115
IJEE an Official Peer Reviewed Journal of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology
BUT

Environmental Implications of Biomethanation in Conventional Biogas Plants

R.S. Khoiyangbam
Department of Environmental Science, D.M. College of Science, Imphal-795 001 (Manipur), India
(Received: July 25, 2010; Accepted: December 8, 2010)

Abstract: In India biomethanation in conventional biogas plants have been proposed as one of the appropriate
alternative sources of energy which can counter the escalating demand of fossil fuels. The number of
installation of biogas plants is increasing rapidly and the trend is expected to continue at least for the
foreseeable future. Biogas plants like many other energy generating technologies are not absolutely free from
environmental problems. Environmental impacts related to biomethanation may range from localized health
effects due to air, water, soil and pathogenic contamination to global warming at the global scale. The probable
health and environmental impacts of energy production in conventional biogas plants have not been fully
understood or well documented. A comprehensive assessment seems essential to make this energy source more
viable and sustainable. The current article discusses the various positive and negative environmental
implications associated with biomethanation and also tries to highlight some mitigation options.
Key words: Conventional biogas plant

Greenhouse gases

INTRODUCTION

Nitrate pollution

Global warming

night soil based biogas plants was initiated in the year

1982-83. Installation of large size night soil plants attached
with community toilet complex was subsequently included
in third programme from the year 1988-89 [2]. However,
production and use of alternative energy including
biomethanation may have environmental consequences
at local, regional and global levels thereby, failing to fulfill
the very hopes and promises. There is a greater need to
assess the environmental profile of each of the alternative
energy production system to ensure minimal
environmental damage and to make it more sustainable.

Energy is an essential need for human existence.

There is shortage of energy due to fast depletion of fossil
fuels and the increase in demand for energy. Besides, the
problem of resource depletion and prohibitive cost,
combustion of fossil fuels pollutes environment. Various
alternative energy sources in harmony with nature and
addressing the pressing needs of social, environmental,
economic and security problems are being proposed.
India is implementing one of the worlds largest programs
on renewable energy covering the entire gamut of
technologies. One of the strategies of the Government has
been to promote biogas plants for recycling of cattle dung
to harness its fuel value without destroying the manure
value. The technology has been accepted as a part of
solution to the present energy shortage especially in the
context of rural areas [1]. In India, the dissemination of
biogas plants has began about half a century back and
the process has become consolidated with the launched
of the National Project on Biogas Development in 1982.
Against the estimated potential of 12 million biogas
plants, at present more than 3 million family size and 4000
community and institutional plants have been set up. The
programme for setting up of community, institutional and

Biogas in Addressing Environmental Problems: For

many years the rational behind using biogas technology
was the search for environmental friendly sources of
energy. With passage of time, it gains additional
importance as technology for solid and liquid waste
treatment. In developing countries biogas addresses the
problems of scarcity of firewood, indoor air related health
problems due to burning of biomass and lack of efficient
and affordable lighting sources. It can save a lot of time
and labour for women in such activities as cleaning,
washing and cooking. Economically, it can substitute
chemical fertilisers, improve soil and boost agricultural
production. Environmentally, it can save fuelwood and

Corresponding Author: R.S. Khoiyangbam, Department of Environmental Science, D.M. College of Science,
Imphal-795 001 (Manipur) India, E-mail: khoiyangbam@yahoo.co.in

181

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

through that help save vulnerable forest, soil, water and

clean up the environment. In rural areas it reduce the use
of forest resources for household energy purposes and
thus slow down deforestation, soil degradation and
resulting natural catastrophes like flooding or
desertification.

associated with the combustion of biofuels and kerosene

in the rural household are taken into account.
Improve Health and Sanitation: Biogas plants function as
a wastes disposal and thus contribute directly to a better
hygienic situation. Animal and human wastes can be used
for biogas production, preventing environmental
contamination and the spread of pathogens [5]. It
improves sanitary conditions for the plant owners, their
families and the entire village. Cattle dung is no longer
stored around the homes. Theoretically, a reduction in the
frequency of disease comprises economically a saving in
medicine and consultation costs. The permanent
availability of cooking energy through biogas can have
effects on nutritional patterns. Foods may be cooked
longer, increasing their digestibility, especially for
children. Water may be boiled more regularly, thus
reducing waterborne diseases. All in all the improvement
of sanitation and hygiene is achieved and therefore a
biogas plant can contribute to a higher life expectancy.

Reliance in Rural Energy: Rural energy planning requires

choices and balance among the various available energy
sources and technologies. In the rural context the
centralized energy sources generally face two difficulties,
firstly the shortages of capital and secondly the problems
of environmental degradation. On the other hand the
energy from biomass resources which currently meets 57
% of the national energy demand [3] has become
unsustainable over the years. Potentially, one of the most
useful decentralized sources of energy supply is biogas
[4]. Biogas may substitute firewood, dung, agricultural
residues, petrol, diesel and electricity, depending on the
nature of the task and local supply conditions and
constraints [5]. The gas can also be used to power
engines, in a dual fuel mix with petrol and diesel and can
aid in pumped irrigation systems [6, 7].

Controlling Pathogens: Generally, animal wastes are

known to associate with various types of pathogens [10].
Anaerobic digestion is considered to be an attractive
process to destroy pathogens, where sanitary practices
are inadequate [11]. Pathogens not killed by aerobic
treatment were significantly reduced by thermophilic
anaerobic digestion [12]. Faecal coliforms including
Salmonellae were completely destroyed in the 50C
digester. A 99 % loss of the viability of the spore of
Fusarium oxysporum was detected after 28 hours in a
mesophyllic anaerobic digester. The cysts of the protozoa
such as Entamoeba and Gtardia are inactivated by
anaerobic digestion. The eggs of parasites such as
Ascaris, Toxocara, Toxascaris and Trichuris are more
resistant [13, 14]. Human viruses such as Coxsachievirus,
Poliovirus, Echovirus and several other enteric viruses are
substantially inactivated at thermophilic temperatures.
Anaerobic digestion of animal wastes reduces the spread
of vector borne contagious diseases since the digested
slurry does not attract flies.

Arrest Deforestation: Fuelwood is the primary source of

biomass, derived from natural forests, plantations,
woodlots and trees around the homestead [8]. As the
population increases the consumption of firewood will
increase more steeply. Estimating an average per capita
consumption of 3 kg of wood per day for energy needs in
rural areas, the daily per capita demand of energy equals
about 13 kWh which could be covered by about 2 m3 of
biogas. The problem of deforestation and soil erosion will
steadily become more critical as firewood dwindles and
the population expands. Deforestation contributes
considerably to top soil erosion thereby increasing the
cost of food production.
Control Indoor Air Pollution: For the user of biogas
technology, health effects are tangible with regards to the
smoke reduction in the kitchen. A smoke-free and ash-free
kitchen means women are no longer prone to lung and
throat infections. A clean and particulate-free source of
energy also reduces the likelihood of chronic diseases
that are associated with the indoor combustion of
biomass-based fuels, such as respiratory infections,
ailments of the lungs; bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer and
increased severity of coronary artery disease [9]. Benefits
of the use of biogas can be scaled up, if the potential
environmental impacts due to emission reductions

Reducing Agricultural Pollution: The economic

importance of the digested slurry is becoming more
acceptable in recent as a source of plant nutrients. The
organic residues after anaerobic digestion has superior
nutrient qualities over the cattle dung [15]. This aspect of
biogas technology may, in fact, be more important than
the gas produced [16, 17]. Digester effluent acts as a soil
conditioner and good source of inorganic nutrients. It
182

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

improves filth, increases water-holding capacity, lessens

wind and water erosion, improves aeration, promotes the
growth of beneficial organisms and maintains soil fertility.
Chinese workers report that digested biomass increases
agricultural productivity by as much as 30 % over
farmyard manure, on an equivalent basis. Jewell, [18]
found that the total Kjeldahl nitrogen for dairy manure
increased from 5.2 % to 6.9 % of the solids during
digestion and Hart [19] found increases from 3.7 % to 3.9
% of the solids. The use of biogas digested slurry in
conjunction with the chemical fertilizers as an integrated
nutrient management strategy may help in reducing the
problems related to the use of chemical fertilizers.

tissues. Asphyxiants are gases that displace oxygen (O2)

from the air (simple asphyxiants), or combine with the
blood's hemoglobin (chemical asphyxiants). The soil and
water related problems are mainly due to the improper
handling and storage of the biomass before and after the
anaerobic digestion.
Methane and Carbon Dioxide: Biogas consists mainly of
CH4 (65 %) and CO 2 (45 %) and these gases displaces
oxygen. Methane is a colourless and odourless natural
gas. It is lighter than air, therefore it tends to rise from the
biogas slurry. Methane is non-toxic and is unlikely to be
a concern in well-ventilated room and open space. Inside
an emptied digester chamber the concentration can reach
dangerous levels and may prove to be deleterious for
worker cleaning the digester tank. Carbon dioxide is
colourless and odourless and is a part of natural air. It is
heavier than air and, as with H2S, will tend to accumulate
just above the surface of biogas slurry. The main danger
with CO2 is that it can create an oxygen deficiency and can
result in asphyxiation or suffocation. Displacement of the
O2 in a sealed digester makes the environment unsuitable
for humans without an external air supply. Elevated levels
of CO2 affect respiration rate, higher levels displace
oxygen as well.

Problems Associated with Biomethanation: Depending

on the feedstock, mode of operation, size of the digester,
process of slurry handling and location of the digester the
severity of health and environmental consequences due
to biomethanation may vary considerably. The unwanted
changes in the environment may range from local, regional
and upto global levels. The major air emissions associated
with biogas are: (i) Gases-methane (CH4), carbon dioxide
(CO2), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), (ii)
Volatile Organic Compounds and (iii) Odour. Air quality
near anaerobic digesters affects the health of animals and
farmers at different degrees due to different levels of
exposure. In case of the community size plants the air
quality may affect the health of farm neighbors. Typically,
air quality in close vicinity of anaerobic digesters is a
concern because the air emission levels may exceed the
health threshold levels.

Hydrogen Sulphide: Hydrogen sulphide is the most

dangerous among the gaseous constituents of biogas. It
chemically interacts with the blood's hemoglobin to block
oxygen from being carried to the body's vital organs. H2S
is a colorless gas and as it is heavier than air and it tends
to be located just above the surface of the slurry. At
higher concentrations at 1-3 ppm a person fails to sense
as it numbs the olfactory nerves. At 10 ppm the law limits
the exposure to 8 hours per day. Biogas typically has
10,000 ppm of H2S. In high concentrations, H 2S causes
instant paralysis and death. Table 1 shows the effect of
H2S at various concentrations. The H2S levels can reach
dangerous levels very quickly when the digester slurry is

Pollutions at Local Level: The localized effects of the

biomethanation may be in the form of air, water and soil
pollutions and also pathogenic infection of humans.
Biogas contains a variety of gases which are emitted into
the atmosphere accidentally or incidentally. These gases
may be classified as irritants or asphyxiants. Irritants
cause inflammation and irritation to the respiratory system
Table 1: H2S Effects on Humans at Various Concentrations
H2S Concentration (ppm)

Effect on Humans

0.005

Barely detectable

Easily detectable

10

Eye irritation

27

Unpleasant odour

200-300

Eye inflammation and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hr

500-700

Loss of consciousness and possible death in 30-60 min

800-1000

Rapid unconsciousness, cessation of respiration and death

1000

Diaphragm paralysis on first breath, rapid asphyxiation

Source: American Society of Agricultural Engineering Standards, 1997

183

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

Table 2: Threshold Limit Values (time weighted average) for Maximum Gas Concentrations in Humans
Gas

Threshold Limit Value (ppm)

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)

10

Ammonia (NH3)

25

Methane (CH4)

1000

Carbon dioxide (CO 2)

5000

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Nitric oxide (NO)

25

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

agitated. Adequate ventilation, suitable precautions and

adequate protective equipment will minimise the dangers
associated with H2S. Besides the biotic effect, H2S causes
corrosion of internal combustion engines when biogas is
used as fuel. The only practical way of removing the H2S
is by dry desulphurization, using ferrous substances, but
it is not technically and economically viable.

odour nuisance on a recipient include the frequency of

occurrence, the intensity, duration and the length of
exposure and the offensiveness of the odour [21, 22].
Fire and Explosion: Methane, which makes up from 0 %
to 80 % of biogas, forms explosive mixtures in air, the
lower explosive limit being 5 % CH4 and the upper limit 15
% CH4. Biogas mixtures containing more than 50 % CH4
are combustible, while lower percentages may support, or
fuel, combustion. It is due to this reason that no naked
flames are allowed in the vicinity of a digester and
electrical equipment used must be of suitable quality.
Other sources of sparks are iron or steel tools, normal
electrical switches, mobile phones, static electricity, etc.,
which needs to be avoided near the digesters. As biogas
displaces air it reduces the oxygen level, restricting
respiration, so any digester area needs to be well
ventilated to minimise the risks of fire and explosion.

Ammonia: Ammonia is a colourless gas and is released

during manure storage and decomposition. Ammonia has
a sharp pungent odor detectable at 5 to 18 ppm. It is
lighter than air and can causes respiratory diseases in
livestock when exposed to significant levels over an
extended period of time. Ammonia irritates the eyes at
levels in the range of 30-50 ppm. High ammonia levels may
also cause eye irritation, respiratory problems and illness
in workers and animals. The American Conference of
Government Industrial Hygienists has established
maximum safe gas concentration, or threshold limit values,
for an 8-hour work day and 40-hour work week for humans
(Table 2). Ammonia emitted to the atmosphere contributes
to acid rain in its oxidized form. Ammonia may also react
with nitrate in the atmosphere to form ammonium nitrate
particles which contribute to smog and health problems.

Source of Pathogens: The sites of biogas production may

become sources of pathogens if improperly operated and
managed. The handling of fresh cattle dung and night soil
presents a potential threat to the health of farm workers.
Even though the digestion process does reduce the
number of pathogens, particularly at higher operating
temperatures, but failed to eliminate under lower
temperature. Further more, the time and temperature
required to eliminate or reduce microbial hazards may vary
depending on climate and the specific management
practices of an individual operation. Since most of the
conventional biogas plants are operated in the mesophilic
range (350 C), the risk of pathogenic infections are quite
higher. One organism that has proven troublesome in
recent years is Escherichia coli that are known to
originate primarily from ruminants such as cattle.
Intestinal infectious worms particularly, the roundworm
(Ascaris lumbricoides) and hookworm (Ancylostoma) are
worth mentioning. Therefore, the handling of animal
wastes and digested slurry must be closely managed to
limit the potential for pathogenic contamination.

Odours: Odour is one of the most contentious issues

facing biomethanation which is caused by combination of
several gases. In cattle dung operated plants the
unpleasant smell is mainly due to NH3, H 2S, amines,
mercaptans, volatile fatty acids and phenols. The problem
of odour becomes profound in community biogas plants
which may be quite offensive. As anaerobic
decomposition is a slower and less complete compared to
aerobic process, the by-products yielded are more
complex and subsequently tend to be more odorous [20].
Irrigation of effluent generates odours through the release
of offensive gases and by spray drift of fine aerosols
through the atmosphere. The odorants may be reasons for
tension, anger, depression, fatigue and confusion to the
recipient. The factors that contribute to the impact of an
184

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

Nitrate (NO3) Pollution: Biogas digested slurry due to its

high water content and bulky nature is generally
evaporated in slurry pits. Such slurry pits may be a source
of NO3 if done in earthen pits, contaminating the ground
water. The size of the slurry pit may vary from around
from 4 m2 (3 m3 family size plant) to around 100 m2
(community biogas plants). Through microbial activities
the N present in the substrate may be converted into
various forms including NO3, NH3, NH4, N2O, etc. Unlike
the NH4-N present, NO3 can be subjected to leach
immediately, because it remains as free ion in the soil
solution [23]. Nitrates in groundwater may cause
significant health problems in human leading to
methemoglobinemia, a disease causing O2 starvation. The
recommended maximum acceptable level for human and
animal occupancy is 10 ppm [24]. In a study conducted by
the author [25] in the slurry pits of community biogas
plants (3 x 85 m3) at Masudpur, Delhi, it was found that
the average NO3 content of the soil for the slurry pit and
slurry drying field were 92.8 mg and 52.0 mg Kg-1 soil,
respectively as compared to 8 mg Kg-1 soil for the soils of
the adjoining land). Besides, contaminating the slurry pit,
NO3 contamination and leaching may also occur in
agricultural soils where slurry is used as plant nutrients.

Atmospheric CH4 from Biogas Plants: The conventional

biogas digesters have exposed areas, from which methane
is emitted continuously to the atmosphere (Figure 1) [26].
The annual contribution to the global CH 4 budget from
fixed dome biogas plants (Capacity 2 m3) operating in
plain and hilly region of northern India amounts to 53.2
and 22.3 kg, respectively [27]. There are 10 million biogas
pits used in China [28]. In India, more than 3 million family
size biogas and 4000 large capacity institutional/
community biogas plants have been installed. In future
the number of biogas plants is going to rise considerably,
thereby increasing the contribution of CH 4 to the
atmosphere [29]. However, the use of biogas reduces the
CO2 emissions through a reduction of the demand for
fossil fuels and also at the same time, captured
uncontrolled CH4 emissions and eliminates CH 4 emissions
resulting from incomplete burning of cattle dung for
cooking purposes. If fossil fuels and firewood is replaced
by biogas additional CO 2 emissions can be avoided
including a saving of forest resources which are a natural
CO2 sink.

Biogas in Relation to Global Warming: There is a great

concern about global warming due to increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are the trace gases in the atmosphere
which are relatively transparent to the higher energy
sunlight, but trap or reflect the lower energy infrared
radiation, behaving somewhat like glass in a greenhouse.
The warming of the earths atmosphere attribute to the
atmospheric trace gases is termed the greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon and an
essential system for maintaining the earths temperature.
Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be 330 C
lower than it is, with an average temperature of-180 C.
While the temperature variations in the distant past have
been the result of non-anthropogenic forces, the recent
change in global climate is largely attributed to human
activities. Methane is the most abundant organic gas in
the atmosphere and second most important
anthropogenic greenhouse gas after CO2. The
contribution of CO2 and CH4 to the present global
warming is estimated to be 50 % and 20 %, respectively.
The warming potential of CH4 is 30 times greater than CO2
in gram per gram basis. Current atmospheric CH4
concentration at 1.75 ppmV is now more than double the

Mitigation Strategies: The emission mitigation measures

in biogas may be in the form of improvement of digester
designs and biological measures such as growing of algae
in the slurry. (i) Modification in KVIC biogas plants:
Structural modification in the KVIC plants in the form of
water jacket enclosing the floating gasholder reduced
emission. The water acts as a barrier sealing unwanted
losses of CH4. Investigation on such plant showed that 82
% reduction in emission [31]. (ii) Cultivation of algae in
the digested slurry: Many researchers reported
substantial decrease of CH4 emission in the presence of
thin layer of algae [32-35]. Decrease of CH4 has been
described either as a result physical barrier to diffusion of
CH4 or to O2 released and subsequent stimulation of
methanotrophs or both. In the biogas digested slurry, the
presence of natural algal cover enhanced the oxidation
rate of CH4 by 21-94 %, reducing emission [31]. Algae can
be cultivated in the digested slurry to control CH 4
emission, stabilize the waste and produce protein rich feed
for animal. This biomass can be used as a part or in total
as feed material for biomethanation, which is known to
enhance the biogas production [5, 36]. Another important
aspect may be cultivation of Blue green algae in the slurry
which are used as valuable biofertilizer in many countries.

pre-industrial (1750-1800) value. At present the

atmospheric CH4 is increasing at the rate of 1.3 % per year.

185

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

Table 4: Major greenhouse gases and their characteristics
Gas

Atmospheric concentration (ppmV)

Annual Concentration increase (%)

Relatively greenhouse efficiency (CO 2 = 1)

Principal sources

CO2

351

0.4

Fossilfuel, deforestation

CFCs

0.00225

15, 000

Foams, aerosols

CH4

1.75

25

Wetlands, rice, livestock

N2O

0.31

0.2

230

Fuels, fertilizers

Source: Flavin [30]

Fig. 1: CH4 and CO2 emission from conventional biogas plant

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES
1.

Sarkar, A.N., 1982. Research and development work

in biogas Technology, J. Scientific and Industrial
Res., 41: 279-291.
2. MNES., 1999. Annual Report, 1998-99, Ministry of
Non-Conventional Energy Sources, New-Delhi.
3. TERI, 1998. Tata Energy Data and Directory
Yearbook, 1997/8. Tata Energy Research Institute,
New Delhi.
4. Khandelwal, K.C. and S.S. Mahdi, 1986.
Biogas
Technology-A
Practical Handbook
(New Delhi: Tata-McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited.
5. Lichtman, R.J., 1983. Biogas Systems in India.
VITA (Volunteers in Technical Assistance).
Virginia, USA.
6. Jawurek, H.H., N.W. Lane and C.J. Rallis, 1987.
Biogas/petrol dual fuelling of SI engine for rural Third
World use, Biomass, 13: 87-103.
7. KVIC, 1993. Khadi and Village Industries Commission
and its Non-Conventional Energy Programmes.
KVIC, Bombay, India.
8. Agarwal, A., 1998. Myths about forest depletion,
Down to Earth, 7(1): 29-42.
9. Banerjee, S., 1996. The Enemy Within, Down to Earth,
5(4): 27-32.
10. Shih, J.C.H., 1988. In: (E.R. Hall and P.N. Hobson,
eds.) 5th Intl. Symp. on Anaerobic Digestion,
Bologna, Italy. Pergamon Press, pp: 259-263.
F.W. Siepmann, 1985. Entsorgungsgpraxis, 6: 359-361.

In many countries worldwide anaerobic digesters

are used to generate CH4 in the form of biogas as
a source of energy. Like many other energy
generating technologies, conventional biogas is not
completely eco-friendly. Recognizing and understanding
the problems associated with it will certainly help in
shaping strategies in evolving the technology, enhancing
its credibility as an appropriate alternative energy source.
The benefits associated with biomethanation are many
and are well known. Use of biogas for cooking and
lighting in rural areas can drastically reduce the depletion
of natural resources like forests. Anaerobically digested
slurry used as agricultural manure could improve soil
conditions and enrich it with higher quantities of plant
nutrients. This can boost agricultural production and
conserve soil from erosion losses, while decreasing the
use of chemical fertilisers leading towards a more
sustainable farming system. As biogas burns without
odour and smoke it improves the health conditions of the
users and their families. However, in the absence of
proper technological up-gradation, operation and
management, this valuable technology may become a
source of environmental problem both at local level and of
global magnitude. Hence, any future efforts in
development of biogas technology should give proper
attention on tackling and rectifying the problems so that
the technology becomes more eco-friendly and
sustainable.
186

Iranica J. Energy & Environ., 2 (2): 181-187, 2011

11. White, E.G., 1982. Communicable diseases resulting

from storage, handling, transport and landspreading
of manures. In: (J.R. Walton and E.G. White, eds.),
Commission of the European Communities, EUR 7627
EN.
12. Engeli, H., W. Edelmann, J. Fuchs and K. Rottermann,
1993. Survival of plant pathogens and weeds during
anaerobic digestion, Wat. Sci. Tech., 27: 69-76.
13. Leftwich, D.B., R.S. Reimers and A.J. Englande, 1981.
In: (W.J. Cooper, ed.) Chemistry in Water Reuse,
Vol. 2, Ann Arbor Sciences, Ann Arbor.
14. Olsen, L.E., 1984. Bioenergy 84, Vol. III.
(H. Egneus and A. Ellegard, eds). Elsevier Appl. Sci.
Publishers, London, pp: 401-405.
15. Sasse, L., C. Kellner and A. Kimaro, 1991.
Improved Biogas
Unit
for Developing
Countries. (GATE) Deutsches Zentrum fur
Entwicklungstechnologien. Eschborn, Germany.
16. Gosling, D., 1980. Renewable energy resources in
Thailand and the Philippines. Dept. Theology,
University of Hull, U.K.
17. Marchaim, U., 1983. Acetic to propionic acid ratio as
a control device for anaerobic digestion processes.
A report to Battelle, Columbus, OH.
18. Jewell, W.J., 1976. Bioconversion of Agricultural
Wastes for Pollution Control and Energy
Conservation. Nat. Sc. Found. and Energy Res. and
Dev. Admin.
19. Hart, S.A., 1963. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed.,
35(6): 748-759.
20. Elliot, L.F., J.W. Doran and T.A. Travis, 1978.
A Review of Analytical Methods for Detecting and
Measuring Malodors, Soil Sci. Soc.
21. Artis, D., 1984. Legal controls over odour nuisance,
Chemistry and Industry, 9: 320.
22. Bulley, N.R. and D. Phillips, 1980. Sensory evaluation
of agricultural odours: A critical review,
Can. Agric Eng., 22: 107-112.
23. Brady, N.C., 1990. The nature and properties of soils.
10th Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company,
New York.
24. Morrison, W.D., L.A. Braithwaite, S. DeBoer and
J.H. Smith, 1991. Air quality effects on pig health and
performance and an overview of problem control
methods studied at the University of Guelph.
In Making Swine Buildings a Better Place to Work,
ed. R.N., Goodwin, Nat. Pork Prod. Council and
Nat. Pork Board, Des Moines, IA, pp: 214-219.

25. Khoiyangbam, R.S., Sushil Kumar, Navindu Gupta

and K. Arun, 2002. Nitrate pollution in soils of biogas
slurry drying pits, Proceeding of the 2nd International
Agronomy Congress, New Delhi, pp: 1180-81.
26. Khoiyangbam, R.S., Sushil Kumar, M.C. Jain, K. Arun
and K. Vinod, 2003. Methane emission form
community biogas plant at Masudpur, Delhi,
Current Science, 84(4): 499-501.
27. Khoiyangbam, R.S., Sushil Kumar and M.C. Jain,
2004. Methane losses form floating gasholder type
biogas plants in relation to global warming,
J. Scientific and Industrial Res., 63: 344-47.
28. Mixing, W., D. Aiguo, S. Xingjian, R. Lixin,
S. Renxing, H. Schutz, W. Seiler, R.A. Rasmussen and
M.A.K. Khalil, 1993. Sources of Methane in China.
Asian Workshop-cum-Training Course on methane
emission studies, September 20-24, 1993.
National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi.
29. Khoiyangbam, R.S., Sushil Kumar, M.C. Jain,
N. Gupta and K. Arun, 2004. Methane emission from
fixed dome biogas plants in hilly and plain regions of
northern India, Bioresource Technology, 95: 35-39.
30. Flavin, C., 1989. Slowing global warming:
A worldwide strategy, Worldwatch Paper 91,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
31. Khoiyangbam, R.S., 2002. Evaluation of greenhouse
gases emission from conventional biogas plants and
manure pits under varying climatic conditions of
India, Ph. D Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.
32. Wang, Z.P., C.R. Crozier and W.H. Patrick, 1995.
Methane emission in flooded rice soil with and
without algae. Advances in Soil Science Soil
Management and greenhouse effect. Lewis
Publishers, U.S.A., pp: 245-250.
33. King, G.M., 1990. Regulation of light on methane
emissions from a wetland, Nature, 345: 513-515.
34. Mouget, J., A. Dakhama, M.C. Lavoie and J. Noue,
1995. Algal growth enhancement by bacteria: Is
consumption of photosynthetic oxygen involved?,
FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 18: 35-44.
35. Umorin, P.P. and L.S. Ermolaeve, 1986.
The interrelations between algae and bacteria in
methane oxidation, Ekologiya, 4: 23-27.
36. Venkataraman, G.S., 1962. The cultivation of algae.
Indian council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

187